44 N.E.3d 1255
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Allen Gray's predecessor purchased mineral rights from Mumford but Mumford reserved oil-and-gas rights for 20 years and “as long thereafter as oil and gas is being produced.”
- The deed provided that after twenty years Mumford’s reservation would continue as to each well then producing and as to “the drilling unit upon which each such producing well is located as evidenced by the drilling permit” until production ceases and the well is plugged.
- Allen Gray sued seeking a construction limiting Mumford’s reservation to oil and gas producible under existing permits at the end of the 20-year term (arguing Mumford could not deepen wells because that would require a new permit).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mumford, interpreting the reservation to cover the drilling unit acreage for each producing well and not to restrict future deepening if new permits were obtained.
- On appeal Allen Gray challenged both the timeliness of Mumford’s response and the deed construction; the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Mumford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Mumford’s response to Allen Gray’s summary judgment motion | Mumford’s response was filed late and should be stricken | Any late filing was excusable; even if allowed, error was harmless because court could grant judgment without Mumford filing | Harmless error — summary judgment for Mumford stands (court may grant judgment for non-moving party) |
| Construction of the deed reservation (scope of "drilling unit" reference) | Reservation limited to oil/gas producible under existing permits at the end of 20 years; Mumford cannot deepen wells without new permit | Reservation covers the drilling unit acreage around producing wells as evidenced by the permit; nothing in deed limits depth or future permits | Reservation covers the drilling unit acreage and does not bar Mumford from deepening wells if it obtains permits; summary judgment for Mumford affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. O’Bryan, 996 N.E.2d 428 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review and summary judgment principles on appeal)
- Bicknell Minerals, Inc. v. Tilly, 570 N.E.2d 1307 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (affirmance of summary judgment may be upheld on any record theory)
- Keene v. Elkhart Cnty. Park & Recreation Bd., 740 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (construction of written instruments and summary judgment are questions of law)
- Larson v. Karagan, 979 N.E.2d 655 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (risk that court may enter judgment for non-moving party when movant seeks summary judgment)
- Bonnes v. Feldner, 642 N.E.2d 217 (Ind. 1994) (harmless error doctrine)
- Ross Coal Co. v. Cole, 249 F.2d 600 (4th Cir. 1957) (summary judgment appropriate when deed admits only one reasonable interpretation)